Safran Landing Systems UK Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2022

2021005501 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/608,544 05/30/2017 Yann Simonneaux WRS-106US 3662 23122 7590 03/24/2022 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 EXAMINER HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YANN SIMONNEAUX and JON SMITH ____________ Appeal 2021-005501 Application 15/608,544 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Safran Landing Systems UK Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-005501 Application 15/608,544 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method of pressurizing a shock absorber for an aircraft to a correct length that does not require an iterative process of pressurization. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6, 7. Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of pressurising or depressurising an aircraft shock absorber, comprising: determining the weight of the aircraft; measuring an ambient temperature around the shock absorber; calculating a target length of the shock absorber based on the ambient temperature and the determined weight of the aircraft; and pressurising or depressurising the shock absorber to the target length; wherein the step of determining the weight of the aircraft comprises increasing the internal pressure of the shock absorber from a fully compressed length of the shock absorber until the shock absorber begins to extend in length and then measuring the internal pressure of the shock absorber when the shock absorber begins to extend. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-005501 Application 15/608,544 3 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1-5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Li (US 2015/0367933 A1, pub. Dec. 24, 2015) and Segerdahl (US 3,581,836, iss. June 1, 1971). Claims 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Li, Fazeli (US 2017/0166330 A1, pub. June 15, 2017), and Segerdahl. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Segerdahl does not teach or suggest that the step of determining the weight of the aircraft comprises “increasing the internal pressure of the shock absorber from a fully compressed length of the shock absorber until the shock absorber begins to extend in length and then measuring the internal pressure of the shock absorber when the shock absorber begins to extend,” as recited in claim 1. Acknowledging that Li does not teach this limitation, the Examiner relies on Segerdahl at column 3, lines 44-50 for this limitation. Final Act. 4. Segerdahl relates to reducing frictional errors in determining the weight of an object supported by a device. Segerdahl 1:9-11; 2:18-20. The method involves increasing pressure within the device until a higher steady- state pressure is observed and then decreasing the pressure until a lower steady-state is observed. Id. at 2:20-23. One half the difference in pressure 2 We treat the rejections of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 103 as withdrawn because these claims were canceled in an Amendment After Final, filed December 28, 202. See Amend. After Final 4-5 (canceling claims 16 and 17); Adv. Act. 1 (entering the Amendment after Final). Appeal 2021-005501 Application 15/608,544 4 between the higher and lower steady-state pressure is added to the lower steady-state pressure to obtain a pressure signal proportional to the actual object weight. Id. at 2:23-26. An aircraft will start to move upward when force exerted on piston 13 equals the aircraft weight supported by the strut plus the frictional force within the strut. Id. at 3:44-47. A higher steady- state pressure is defined as a substantially constant pressure within strut 9 after upward motion commences. Id. at 3:47-50. In contrast, an aircraft will start to move downward when pressure decreases to the point where the force exerted on piston 13 equals the aircraft weight supported by the strut minus the frictional force within the strut. Id. at 3:62-67. A lower steady- state pressure is defined as a substantially constant pressure within strut 9 after downward motion commences. Id. at 3:67-69. The Examiner takes the position that increasing the pressure of strut 9 until it begins to extend in length, as taught by Segerdahl, teaches the argued limitation for determining weight of an aircraft. The difficulty with the Examiner’s analysis, however, is that Segerdahl does not teach or suggest that the strut (i.e., the claimed “shock absorber”) is increased “from a fully compressed length,” as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5-6; see also Reply Br. 2-3. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that “the cylinder is understood to be at its fully compressed state prior to when the cylinder begins to rise,” because “the cylinder is not discussed as going beyond the length at which it begins.” Ans. 4. Yet, that Segerdahl’s description of the invention does not refer to a fully compressed state of the strut does not teach or suggest that strut 9 is fully compressed when the process for determining weight of the aircraft begins. We determine that the Examiner’s finding that Segerdahl’s strut is increased from a fully Appeal 2021-005501 Application 15/608,544 5 compressed length lacks adequate evidentiary support. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 9, and 11. Independent claim 6 recites language similar to independent claim 1, and the Examiner rejects claim 6 based on findings similar to those described above with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-8; Final Act. 6-7.3 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 6 and dependent claims 12 and 14 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 9, 11 103 Li, Segerdahl 1-5, 9, 11 6, 12, 14 103 Li, Fazeli, Segerdahl 6, 12, 14 Overall Outcome 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 14 REVERSED 3 We treat the Examiner’s reference to “Nance” instead of “Segerdahl” as inadvertent error. See Final Act. 7.